Posted!

Join the Conversation

Comments

Welcome to our new and improved comments, which are for subscribers only.
This is a test to see whether we can improve the experience for you.
You do not need a Facebook profile to participate.

You will need to register before adding a comment.
Typed comments will be lost if you are not logged in.

Please be polite.
It's OK to disagree with someone's ideas, but personal attacks, insults, threats, hate speech, advocating violence and other violations can result in a ban.
If you see comments in violation of our community guidelines, please report them.

2006 California law prevented police misconduct records from reaching the public. State lawmakers might reverse course in next few days

Two and a half years ago, an internal investigation at the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department uncovered that 25 employees attempted to cheat their way to a higher rank by sharing questions and answers from a confidential promotional exam.

FILE - A bill racing through the state legislature could open records related to serious crimes committed by officers for the first time in more than a decade.(Photo: Johan Ordonez/AFP/Getty Images)

A bill racing through the state legislature could open records related to serious crimes committed by officers for the first time in more than a decade.

State Sen. Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, drafted the legislation and wants to provide the public with the ability to request information about investigations regarding police use of deadly force, sexual misconduct and dishonesty in investigative reports.

“We want to make sure that good officers and the public have the information they need to address and prevent abuses and to weed out the bad actors,” Skinner said. “SB 1421 will help identify and prevent unjustified use of force, make officer misconduct an even rarer occurrence, and build trust in law enforcement.”

In process, Skinner is working to strike a balance between police accountability advocates who are fed up with police confidentiality, and law enforcement unions that are wary of letting the public in on internal affairs that have long been kept confidential.

Following a California Supreme Court decision in 2006, state law generally prevents information about investigations into police officer misconduct from being released to the public.

FILE - Demonstrators march through the streets protesting the October 8 killing of 18-year-old Vonderrit Myers Jr. by an off duty St. Louis police officer on October 9, 2014 in St Louis, Missouri.(Photo: Scott Olson/Getty Images)

While similar bills seeking to open records died in 2007 and 2015, SB 1421 has come the closest to becoming law.

During a June committee hearing, Skinner said it was time to increase transparency regarding police misconduct investigations.

“You unfortunately have a circumstance now where, depending on the community, the public feels that there is no real investigation, that officers are above the law,” Skinner said.

Meanwhile, the state's law enforcement unions have expressed several concerns as the bill has moved through the legislature. Primarily, the unions say that personnel and investigative records should stay confidential.

Its opponents argue that the bill would jeopardize officer privacy, that it would make an already unfair officer disciplinary process even worse, and that it would burden agencies with a wave of civil lawsuits they can't afford.

During the June hearing, Jonathan Feldman, a lobbyist for the California Police Chiefs Association, said that the bill still did not provide enough detail about what exact records could be unsealed if it became law.

“We’re not clear exactly what we’re releasing,” Feldman said. “Some clarity there would be helpful.”

New amendments to the bill were announced Friday morning, providing a comprehensive list of what records could be disclosed: all investigative records, documented evidence, recordings of interviews, autopsy reports, reports to the district attorney to determine whether to file charges, and copies of disciplinary records.

While the bill has been revised to keep unfounded complaints from reaching the public, Feldman said that officers who were investigated but found innocent would be left vulnerable to public scrutiny for crimes they did not commit.

“Really our issue with the bill as it stands now is with the release of information for officers that have been exonerated,” Feldman said. “Exposing that officer to the public is a concern for us.”

John Lovell, a lobbyist for the Association of LA Deputy Sheriffs, also took issue with revealing to the public grisly details about incidents where officers were cleared of wrongdoing.

“Use of force is never pretty, in policy or outside of policy,” Lovell said. “The moment you release an officer's records, even if they did everything in policy, you create an inference that they must have done something wrong.”

Skinner responded with a suggestion she admitted the bill’s supporters might not like.

“I was very open to having the officer’s name not disclosed,” Skinner said. “I appreciate that some of the supporters of the bill would not be happy with such an amendment.”

One of the latest amendments clarified that the names of officers could be redacted in accord with a 2015 California Supreme Court case.

“My purpose is to create accountability and transparency,” Skinner said. “It’s not so much knowing the individual officer, but the trust that the agency has rules. That they’re following those rules.”

Skinner has negotiated heavily with the law enforcement unions as the legislative amendment deadline approached. And while the bill's final critical steps are still ahead, Skinner's diplomatic negotiations with the various law enforcement unions and criminal justice agencies have paid off.

“I’ve been meeting with the chiefs, with PORAC, with CHP, with sheriffs, with the DAs,” Skinner said. “Our intent is to strike a balance between privacy and the public’s right to know.”

The California Police Chiefs Association wrote a letter to Skinner Friday informing her of their support for the bill.

"Our commitment to transparency has always been balanced with the rights of due process for all parties involved in an investigation," the union's letter said. "Finding a path forward for legislation of this magnitude is incredibly difficult and rarely achieved, and we greatly appreciate your continued efforts this year to work with us towards a positive outcome."

The bill is awaiting a third reading in the assembly and a senate vote on its amendments before it could reach the governor's desk.